Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 625 posts

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#271

Post by svnt »

gwern wrote: post #203

None of the comments thus far seem to clearly explain why this matters. Let me summarize the implications: Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page ( https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding... ) in a paper no one read* would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, nat…

This is the inherent conflict in the company.

Once it turned out you needed 7B parameters or more to get LLMs worth interacting with, it went from a research project to a winner-take-all compute grab. OpenAI, with an apparent technical lead and financial access, was well-positioned to win it.

It is/was naive of the board to think this could be won on a donation basis.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#272

Post by red75prime »

db-interface wrote: post #210
kragen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't think the leaked screenshots support those conclusions; i don't have any idea where you're getting those conclusions from

In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?

You can agree that people are different, and, simultaneously, don't agree that, say, the less useful ones should be stripped of some of their rights.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#273

Post by comp_throw7 »

foota wrote: post #262

Definitely seems like Helen is emerging as the main leader of the coup, "Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that could be consistent with its mission. In the board’s view, OpenAI would be stronger without Mr. Altman."

If the events happened as described (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373572), calling it a "coup" sure is an interesting framing.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#274

Post by kragen »

foota wrote: post #270
kragen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not cool for companies to try to shut down academic freedom of inquiry in scholarly publishing in order to improve their public image her independence from openai was the nominal reason she was asked to supervise it in the first place, wasn't it

I'm not sure you should get to have your cake and eat it too.

that does seem to be what altman was attempting: he wanted to have the cake of independent board members, but eat it by having them never express any opinions contrary to his own

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#275

Post by jacquesm »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #268
jacquesm wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if she was working with the Chinese she couldn't have done a more effective job. So I'm not sure how this all integrates in her head but you break the glass in break-the-glass moments, not before, it's a one-shot thing.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373572 for why this might have qualified (if the story as presented is accurate).

Thin ice at best. And if it was she should come out and say it or leak the minutes where that was established as the reason that Sam had to go, that the fall-out would be worth it and that Microsoft could be contained.

I think any action to immediately destroy OpenAI should have been preceded by being on-track to create AGI and strong indications that it was not going to benefit humanity, as the charter implies. Anything less and it's just a powerplay. But what is the point of having a nice fat red button if you never get to push it?

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#276

Post by kragen »

red75prime wrote: post #272
db-interface wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?

You can agree that people are different, and, simultaneously, don't agree that, say, the less useful ones should be stripped of some of their rights.

note that neoreaction is opposed wholesale to the idea of human rights

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#278

Post by 15457345234 »

abi wrote: post #235
gwern wrote: post #203

None of the comments thus far seem to clearly explain why this matters. Let me summarize the implications: Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page ( https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding... ) in a paper no one read* would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, nat…

I mean it's not cool for board members to publicly criticize the company.

It's a nonprofit board & it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work in the sector they're specialized in without bias.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#279

Post by 15457345234 »

foota wrote: post #270
kragen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not cool for companies to try to shut down academic freedom of inquiry in scholarly publishing in order to improve their public image her independence from openai was the nominal reason she was asked to supervise it in the first place, wasn't it

I'm not sure you should get to have your cake and eat it too.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the role of non-executive board members.

In many cases they're industry experts / academics and in many cases those academics continue to publish papers that look objectively at the actions of all companies in their sphere of influence, including the one they're on the board of.

It's _expected_ for them to publish this type of material. It's literally their job. Cheerleading is for the C-suite.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#280

Post by db-interface »

kragen wrote: post #252
db-interface wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?

i'm not familiar with the varieties of neoreaction that consider it a core view, though apparently to my surprise they do exist i think the vast majority of racists aren't neoreactionaries, though. like literally more than 99.9%

I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related.

I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.

Post reply on HN